GPWA Times Magazine - Issue 11 - January 2010

Full Tilt circumventsKentuckycase The Story Name Goes Here “We realize this is not a task you requested. We also believe this is an unreasonable burden on regulators and the financial services industry at a time of economic crisis, and it contradicts the stated intent of the Financial Services Committee.” —Rep. BarneyFrank ina letter to the Obamaadministration calling for theUIGEA implementations tobedelayed “Delaying the compliance date serves no interest except that of the Internet gambling enterprises that have long evaded American gambling laws and will continue to do so until effective enforcement is in place.” —Sen. JonKyl andRep. Spencer Bachus (above) ina letter to theObama administrationcalling for theUIGEA implementations tomove forward “Team Full Tilt doesn’t take adding a team member lightly. But Tom Dwan has proven, through skill and dynamic play, that he will be a force to be reckoned with for many years to come. We are proud to count Tom as one of our own.” —TeamFull TiltmemberHowardLederer, onaddingTom “durrrr”Dwan (above) T he Kentucky Supreme Court heard argu- ments late last year on whether the Commonwealth of Kentucky has the right to seize online gambling do- mains because domains are “gambling devices” that vio- late gambling law. The Ken- tucky Court of Appeals ruled in January 2009 that online gambling domains were not “gambling devices” under Kentucky law, and therefore couldnot be seized. The January ruling by the Court of Appeals represented the biggest legal victory for the on- line gambling industry in the U.S. since the passage of theUnlawful Internet Gambling En- forcement Act in 2006. But that wasn’t enough for Full Tilt Poker. In- stead of waiting around to see if the Kentucky SupremeCourtupheld thede- cision, Full Tilt went to court in the U.K. to prevent Ken- tucky from seizing its domain —and itwon. Judge Michael Furness ruled last week that Safenames, the British domain registrar used byFull Tilt, can’t transfer Full Tilt Poker’s domains to Ken- tucky under British law be- cause“Kentucky’sproceedings arenot enforceable inEnglish law.” Full Tilt had asked the High Court for this injunction be- cause Safenames had not guaranteed that it would not complywith theKentucky sei- zureorder. Attorneys for Kentucky were asked to appear before the court, but declined todo so. FullTilt attorneyRomieTager argued before the court that complying with the potential seizure order would amount to Kentucky applying its laws to the U.K. and enforcing the criminal and public law of a foreign state. Furness agreed with Tager’s arguments for the most part, and issued the injunction. Furness also agreed that Full Tilt’s strategy of not waiting for the final Kentucky ruling was the correct one. “The proceedings are essen- tially pre-emptive in nature — in theory theclaimantmight havewaited to see if theCom- monwealthofKentuckywould attempt enforcement proceed- ingsand thendefended them,” Furness wrote in his ruling. “But this seems tome to be a case where the pre-emptive approach was justified. The continued use of the domain name is clearly important to the claimant’s business and it is at present in state of un- certainty as to whether the Kentucky proceedings will be enforced.” —byVinNarayanan